Pedroia joins Cal Ripken Jr. and Ryan Howard as the only players to win Rookie of the Year and MVP in consecutive years. ...

With 213 hits, Pedroia tied Ichiro Suzuki for the Major League lead. His 54 doubles led the Majors. He led the AL in runs (118) and multihit games (61).

Backed by a .326 average, Pedroia lost the batting title by just four points to Minnesota catcher Joe Mauer. Pedroia finished fourth in total bases (322) and seventh in extra-base hits (73).

An elite tablesetter, Pedroia also chipped in with power (17 homers, 83 RBIs) and speed (20 stolen bases). ...

[H]e became the fifth second baseman in Major League history to have 200 hits, 50 doubles, 100 runs and 15 homers in the same season, joining Charlie Gehringer (1936), Craig Biggio (1998), Jose Vidro (2000) and Alfonso Soriano (2002).

"I think because the article was about Pedroia and he did not win mvp and roy in the same year....He's reporting facts not facts that are better than present facts....."

But he's implying that's the best you could do... shouldn't he have made the stat "ROYs who won an MVP within their first 2 seasons"?

Let me use a Jere-nalogy: Imagine if you climbed K2 and Everest in one year. Then some other person climbs both in consecutive years. And an article puts them in the select few who have done each in consecutive years, without mentioning your feat. Wouldn't you be pissed? Should Fred Lynn (and Ichiro) have waited a year to win their MVPs so they too could be in this exclusive, specific club?

I just checked the official release from the Red Sox, and they do it "my" way:

"Ryan Howard (2005-06) and Ripken Jr. (1982-83) are the only other players ever to earn league MVP honors one season after being named Rookie of the Year. Fred Lynn (1975) and Suzuki (2001) won both awards in the same season."

See what I'm saying? When there are 2 awards in question, and one can only be done in one's rookie year, the best a player can do is win both in the rookie year. The second best is to win ROY in year 1 and MVP in year 2. If you're gonna talk about which players are in that club, how do you leave out the players in the better club? The feat is not about the consecutive-ness, it's about the "getting it done ASAP"-ness. To me, Pedroia joins the club of Ichiro, Lynn, Howard, and Ripken who won a ROY and an MVP within their first two seasons, though Lynn and Ichiro are in a higher tier.

If players weren't eligible to win MVP in their first season, then yes, Dustin would've just done the best you can do. I'm betting $s to 0s that Ian thought of it that way and effed up, forgetting about the people that did it in the same year.

I'm just saying, if an article were to say something like "Hank Aaron was the only man in baseball history to hit 755 home runs," well, yes, that would be true, but to just leave it at that is leaving out key information, and to me, implying that no one else has achieved (or surpassed) his feat. That's all I'm saying.

One thing I was struck by (for the first time) in looking at Pedroia's stats is how much they remind me of the kind of stats Joe Morgan used to put up in his MVP years. No where near as many stolen bases, of course, but I think there was a lot more emphasis on stolen bases 30 years ago than today.

I'm just saying, if an article were to say something like "Hank Aaron was the only man in baseball history to hit 755 home runs," well, yes, that would be true, but to just leave it at that is leaving out key information, and to me, implying that no one else has achieved (or surpassed) his feat. That's all I'm saying.

But stating that about Aaron would be wrong. And the Beckett sentence would also be wrong. However, there is nothing factually incorrect in any sentence in Browne's article. Nuh. Thing.

His article has been updated with quotes, but please: show me anything that is factually wrong.

I'm just saying, if an article were to say something like "Hank Aaron was the only man in baseball history to hit 755 home runs,"

I'm guessing (but not sure) that Jere meant someone might write "Hank Aaron was the only man in baseball history to hit exactly 755 home runs and no more". But no one talks about baseball that way, so I'm not sure that such a scenario would ever exist.

Exactly. No one says "this guy was the only guy to...." only to ignore guys who have done the same thing only in less time, or has more.

Yes, I meant "exactly" 755. To say that would have nothing factually wrong with it either. But it would be misleading. It implies 755 is the most, not that he just happens to be the one guy who hit an exact number. Just like "ROY followed by MVP" implies it's the best you can doing by saying someone joins "only these people" in that group of others who have done it. If it's not the best, why you would bring it up? (Without adding that some have done it better--i.e. gotten the MVP in the first year, not waiting till the second.)

I see what you mean, but I disagree that Ian Browne did that. I can see the Red Sox mentioning Lynn because it's their guy, but in a story about Pedroia, it would be gratuitous, unnecessary. Something a fan would mention, but not a writer.

Jere said... If it's not the best, why you would bring it up? (Without adding that some have done it better--i.e. gotten the MVP in the first year, not waiting till the second.)

Jesus, Jere the story had nothing to do with Lynn and if Browne wanted to make about the best he would have mentioned that Pedroia als has a World Sereis ring in his first 2years a MVP and a ROY and a gloden glove and a silver slugger award....Good for FY , stop pissin on his parade.....Some times you can be so literal it's mind-boggling....

Wow, I missed this post today (though not the fact that FY won MVP). Too busy at work, I guess. But I got a good chuckle out of the debate about Ian Browne's article. It's just so....JOS! Boy, when does baseball start again? I miss you all and these crazy arguments.